Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
Interpretation and applicability of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the recovery of erroneously refunded excise duty. It discusses whether the subsequent Supreme Court judgment in M/s Unicorn Industries, overruling M/s SRD Nutrients, would be applicable in the present case. The Tribunal observed that the Excise Officer had to follow the SRD Nutrients decision at the time of passing the order, and any subsequent change in legal position would not permit invoking Section 11A. The High Court held that the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) vs. M/s Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. is squarely applicable, and the appeal was filed despite the governing judgment. Consequently, the High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant for filing the appeal against the settled legal position.
Interpretation and applicability of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the recovery of erroneously refunded excise duty. It discusses whether the subsequent Supreme Court judgment in M/s Unicorn Industries, overruling M/s SRD Nutrients, would be applicable in the present case. The Tribunal observed that the Excise Officer had to follow the SRD Nutrients decision at the time of passing the order, and any subsequent change in legal position would not permit invoking Section 11A. The High Court held that the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) vs. M/s Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. is squarely applicable, and the appeal was filed despite the governing judgment. Consequently, the High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant for filing the appeal against the settled legal position.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
